Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:20:51 -0400 (ART) From: Fernan Aguero <fernan@iib.unsam.edu.ar> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: ports vs standard sources Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0104101043290.3895-100000@iib005.iib.unsam.edu.ar>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi all! I am new to FreeBSD and just starting to get the grasp of the 'ports' concept. I have already installed a few and found that is really a great thing to have. However I also noticed that many of them are outdated and also read a few posts suggesting to grab standard sources and compile without using the ports. From my limited knowledge - and reading the Handbook did not help me clarify this - this is how i see things. i) first of all I thought that ports were necessary because things would not compile straight otherwise. ii) however several mentions to compile things without using ports have made me think that this is not true in all cases. Then my question is: how do autoconf based compilation work in FreeBSD? - I mean sources that use GNU autoconf to generate a configure script (that in turn generates a Makefile)? If autoconf-configure work OK, then the idea of ports is just to help download-patch-compile in an automated way? Another question: I noticed that some ports did run a configure script before compiling, however, I could not pass any custom option to configure, since it was all part of the port 'make' procedure. How can I manually add options before compiling? (Example: suppose I want to compile php as an apache module. I would run configure on php sources like this: ./configure --with-apache=../apache_1.3.x). How would you this with ports? Thanks in advance, Fernan -- Fernan Aguero Bioinformatics IIB-UNSAM fernan@iib.unsam.edu.ar ICQ 100325972 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.21.0104101043290.3895-100000>